Thought this was the point? (it's in the OP afterall )

Nothing sophisticated or new about that engine in any way shape or form

 

it is to me.

anyway this might be one of the last big v8's before the eco jerks kill em all off.

 

But those engines are highly stressed.

The LS* engines are not. They are used and abused in hotter climates, with worse fuel, and require less work to keep them going.

Forget the displacement, look at the power vs economy & maintanance.

Want more power, strap a blower to it.

 

GM tried different head designs, they tried more valves and they tried to ditch the pushrods for OHCs.

In each case, they gained weight, dimensions, lost reliability and/or made only small power gains. In other words, GM's research in 'improving' the engine, made it unsuitable for a lot of it's intended uses.

The LS series of engines may not be super complex, they may 'only' make 450bhp from 7 litres, but they last, they're simple to work on and they don't break if they're not maintained to the highest standard.

As an engine they may not be state of the art, but as a product, they beat the competition in cost, reliability and flexibility. In addition, the possibility to supercharge reliably is always there, as is a wealth of cheap tuning parts to increase power at the expense of reliability if that's what you want.
That's why the LS series of engines are popular with tuners, they start out simple and reliable, you can then tune to suit.

Also, BMW's V8 is far more complicated so subsequently is only used in BMWs and a few specialist applications where knowledgeable support is available. Any mechanic with a basic knowledge can work on a pushrod V8, hence the popularity of the LS series.

Toyota's UZ engines have hardly set the world on fire, have they.....?

 

Hang on a minute.

The original post was "complicated" (well actually "complimacateded" but I kind of took it you meant "complicated" since I can't find a definition of "complimacateded" anywhere ). Doesn't mention anything about it being a characterful engine.

May I also point out a certain amount of foot shooting regarding your arguements above relating to a complicated engine.

Quotes:
Soulcrew - "It's simple"
MarkB - "That's why the LS series of engines are popular with tuners, they start out simple and reliable, you can then tune to suit"


A few people are saying I'm missing the point but regarding the original statement I appear to be one of the few GETTING the point. Seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the relationship between complexity and character. I ain't getting into that discussion too much since a lot of subjectivity (however I ain't getting out of this without at least making mention of the 4.3L V-twin in Thunderbug or the 24L W12 Sealion in the Napier Bently, if you like large capacity engines that's the one for you )

Regarding the UZ engine by the way Mark, it has been regarded as one of the top 10 engines in the world fella

 

How many more of them would they sell if it produced 600bhp?

Probably about the same I'm guessing. Bucketloads of torque anyway though and V8's are a fairly lazy engine (In character).

Why spend millions in R&D getting more out of it as standard when you can sell it as is and also let the millions of subsequent tuning houses make a few quid along the way? (Your own being some of them)

 

Point is, a slow, lazy engine can be economical and very durable.

There is definitely a place for big, dumb yank motors. Especially since the septics think a service is something to do with god.

BTW; the R-R 6.75 WAS as GM engine! a Buick, to be precise.

 

the rover v8 did quite well didnt it.